8 ms·
I think this is intended to be comforting, especially for corporate entities as they feel scrapegoated into bad light by the government, but there's very little
by Flying_Dwarf 13y ago
I think this is intended to be comforting, especially for corporate entities as they feel scrapegoated into bad light by the government, but there's very little for the public to acknowledge these numbers. I'm not saying Facebook is lying, I'm saying the people giving Facebook the numbers are probably lying. There's no way to tell.
- mcintyre1994 13y agoFacebook know how many requests they've responded to. If there is any dishonesty here, it's coming from Facebook. They might have been told to give false numbers, but they've got the correct numbers.
- jarek 13y agoThere's the shared-private-keys argument, by which they wouldn't actually know how many requests were made. I haven't been followed very closely so I don't know if private keys thing was specifically denied - was it?
- mcintyre1994 13y agoAs far as I know, they deny any sort of blanket availability of data - so a shared private key would seem to be denied under that guise. I think claiming a number as they have, and a number of affected users, would also be denial of that. Circular logic, but we can't do much better. If they're lying and just made up these numbers, there's nowhere to really go with that.
- genwin 13y agoWhy give false numbers when you can give true numbers for only a six month period? Just leave out the NSA request for all user data that was made earlier.
- mpyne 13y agoWhat people would be giving Facebook the numbers? Those are Facebook's own stats, compiled by their own legal department.
- jarek 13y ago... or so says Facebook's legal department ;). How can we tell?
- bobwaycott 13y agoSimply put, we cannot.